Talk:Green Party of Canada Living Platform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On reviewing this page and knowing the facts (I was in the center of all of this) i don't thing the article is biased - it is largely factual and adjective free - I removed the NPOV link. People should be free to clean out more of the adjectives, and add additional information, but the current content of the page is quite defensible with copious evidence. (MLP mlpilling@rogers.com)

I've tried to inject some objectivity into an extremely partisan post. I don't see how it does the Wiki encyclopedia any good to allow this sort of crazy sort of posting to continue. The problem is that there are many different points of view in this debate, but one particular viewpoint cannot even conceive that there may be any merit in their opposition, and therefore assume that anyone who disagrees with them is Satan in carnate. If any of you guys want to discuss this, email me at bill.hulet@sympatico.ca

{bill hulet has an opinion, but it is iin no way a nonpartisan one, he has been one of Jim Harris few defenders. MLP)

The place to discuss it is here. The main problem is that many lies are being circulated. The "reason why" is not in debate, Travis is a noted opponent of the LP itself and participatory democracy in general, not a Green Party member of long standing.

As for why it is important and detailed, this said it:

Pardon the long detailed crisis story, but, to justify that:

  • it's hard to understand without the details,
  • almost everything is verifiable on the public record especially here, and,
  • it is unlikely that anyone ever took a political party over via a wiki before. This ought to be of vast interest to anyone interested in the trustworthiness/credibility of wiki-based information.
  • Wikipedia:itself contains reams and reams of stuff about how important wiki is. Surely a few pages to show a detailed case study of exactly that, is worth having, as it speaks to the intersection of politics and wikis.

THe original article as updated by those more involved:

The Green Party of Canada Living Platform is a wiki used for participatory democracy - the actual authoring of a political party's platform for use in a national election. It is notable for being the very first attempt to create a binding political platform entirely on the Internet. The Party expects to have the first such platform ready in case of a Canadian federal election, 2005.

Contents

[edit] Technology

The basic technology is tikiwiki but mailing list, teleconference and chat media are also used. There is even some discussion about whether a blog element is useful.

[edit] Use in outreach and lobbying

Though the Green Party of Canada received only 4.3% of the popular vote in the Canadian federal election, 2004 and is not in the Canadian House of Commons due to Canada's antiquated "first past the post" voting system, it is an active lobbyist and has achieved some victories by working through members of other parties - see Canada Well-Being Measurement Act.

Given that history of collaboration, it is not surprising that some features of the Living Platform are open to non-members who need not be in Canada, or Canadians: The Party lets even anonymous parties add comments. Though only those who are members or advisors of the Party can edit the actual wiki pages, the comments can contain links to the internal wiki pages or other resources, letting anyone aid in policy research.

In a February 2005 meeting, the "emergence of a new and improved Shadow Cabinet" was defined as one of the LP's most important goals.

An attempt to literally hand over the constitutional authority to author the platform to the LP users did not pass, however: see more on this conflict below.

[edit] Feedback-oriented Terms of Use

The Terms of Use combine the Creative Commons CC-by and CC-by-nc-sa open content Creative Commons Licenses in a way that encourages maximum sharing of policy papers and feedback, potentially among many players in the noncommercial sector. Contributions by any individual may be copied anywhere as long as attribution is preserved, but commercial use of any combination of works by multiple parties is reserved to the Party. However, any noncommercial purpose - such as other parties' debates or NGO position discussions or academic research - may freely redistribute all the content.

Legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons and Common Content, and a notable critic of monopolies on information, has pronounced the terms of use as "cool". CC's own wiki debates on terms of use have similarly focused on this distinction between what a participant commits to the group and what the group commits to the public, the latter being Share Alike to ensure that the group creates a shared resource that is continously available to its non-members, even if some rights in that use are reserved to the group.

[edit] Party executive attempts to seize control

By far the most important incident was the January-February 2005 crisis in which Party's Election Readiness and Campaign Team (the top executive committee) was in a confrontation with promoters of the Living Platform, in which the LP itself played the central role. The phases of this crisis were:

[edit] Opposed by the Executive

On January 20, 2005, there was an attempt to shut down or restrict Living Platform debate by party officials with close ties to Party Leader Jim Harris (politician). By this time, the Living platform was being used by members for many non-platfrom activities, including the use of it by deputy leader Tom Manley to debate party governance, by a women's caucus to build their agenda, and by members using it to discuss and develop alternative directions for the party (some of which were critical of the existing leadership). A few pages contained derogatory comments about party figures which were soon removed by the administrators (as per the sites "terms of use"). Some documents which the executive had wished to remain secret were posted. Furthermore many of the pages that were critical of the leader and the executive were open to the public to view. As internal party controversies are a normal and generally unavoidable part of politics, many questioned the need for restrictions on freedom of speech in the Green Party. At that time, Party Chair Bruce Abel blocked any executive interference in the Living Platfom, and ordered the webmaster to keep it running and intact with all comments remaining on the record. The issue was temporarily resolved when the process (steering) committee of the Living Platform decided to make some of the most critical pages inaccessible except by request, but most of the pages would remain avaliable untill such a time that a new wiki be set up solely for internal party matters so platform work could continue with less disruption.

This was a very notable challenge and response that to some proved the Party's determination to build a deliberative democracy mechanism, not just for policymaking for the Government of Canada but to test its advice on itself first, and ensure internal party accountability, transparency and adherence to its Ten Key Values that would withstand close public scrutiny and intense internal debate. It remains to be seen, however, whether the current GPC leadership and executive were willing to tolerate such an open party, which would have kept a continual spotlight on their management and decisions.

[edit] Living Agenda

A proposal by Party Fundraising Chair Kate Holloway to integrate all political party governance in a similar framework, a variation of Living Platform called the Living Agenda, was adopted by the Party's process committee as a response to the crisis.

Despite continuing opposition from a small group of fulltime staff who prefer secrecy and lack of scrutiny on their decision making, it seems clear that the Party's basic commitment to its Six Principles - one of which is participatory democracy - is challenging the command hierarchy of staff that report to only a few Party Councillors and the Leader.

A more reflexive intranet - including not only the wiki but mailing list protocols - and other rules called collectively "GROOP" are apparently required to extend or replace existing Rules of Order of the Green Party of Canada. These too are being worked out entirely in public, as part of this commitment to an open party.

[edit] attacked by "spin doctors"

Many observers expected the transition to be quite divisive, as Harris is known to be very stubborn, and has a reputation for being both misogynist and - according to party members who have worked for him in both business and political contexts - a "pointy-haired boss." It was not long before the counter-attack by opponents of the open party began:

In late January, media advisor Dermod Travis hired Ken Dickerson, who was initially given the title "Director of Policy and Research", and expressed concern that there was a conflict of mandate with the existing "Head of Platform and Research" Michael Pilling, who had set up and was facilititing the Living Platform. Dickerson was critical and even disdainful of Living Platform and participatory democracy itself. His initial assignment, in his view, was to rewrite Green Party of Canada Platform, 2004 "in case of any snap election", disregarding the process the volunteers were engaged in. It was clear to many insiders that once there was an alternative to the Green Party of Canada Platform, 2005 being authored in Living Platform, it would then be possible to fire Michael Pilling, its originator, strongest supporter - and the staff member most opposed to a top down executive takeover of the GPC.

Given that participatory democracy is one of the Six Principles in both the Green Party of Canada's own constitution, and the Global Greens Charter, this was quite a remarkable attack not only on a tool or group of users, but on an ideal. This led to more conflict:

[edit] supported by Shadow Cabinet

Pilling immediately objected to the plan in the strongest terms. and published its particulars and while others speculated on its consequences.

This triggered strong action by the Party's Shadow Cabinet (its issue advocates or critics). In early February, they decided to give their power under article 18 of the GPC's own Constitution to the subcommittee chairs authoring the planks in Living Platform. They further endorsed very strongly the work and dedication of Michael Pilling, the Head of Platform and Research. They implicitly condemned Tom Manley for going along with the plan to subvert Pilling and the LP.

[edit] counter-attack by ERCT

After this attack failed, the Green Party of Canada Election Readiness and Campaign Team, loyal only to Harris and consisting of the individuals whom he put in place in 2003 to consolidate control of the Party, set another attack.

Using overtures made to Travis and to fundraiser Debbie Hartley inviting them to resign as a pretext, GPC Organizing Chair Kevin Colton - a key member of the ERCT - moved to delete large chunks of essential materials from the Living Platform as a way to cripple it and prevent it from supporting Platform 2005 participants. Objections that this was an over-reaction came immediately, notably from longstanding Green and activist Lois Kivipelto, who had run on a "slate" against the ERCT at its 2004 AGM.

[edit] ERCT defeated, Leader turned (A conjecture of the future)

On February 7, 2005, the matter was partially resolved by the GPC Shadow Cabinet, which was meeting to determine the status of the materials and the potential for interruption of Living Platform itself - or distraction of the Shadow Cabinet which would have to review these materials. Under the GPC Constitution the Shadow Cabinet is legally responsible to deliver the platform and "may" consult other groups or Leader appointees, but is in no way obligated to do that.

In the meeting whose minutes are visible to the public, the Shadow Cabinet gathered to asses the situation, with lead Jim Harris in attendence. The Leader claimed to be

"very proud of living platform, LP most exciting thing we have going, pioneering the grass roots democracy. LP is the way to focus on development. All Shadow Cabinet members should participate in the living platform."

This was a flat reversal from the views of the Head of Media and executive team. It was hoped Harris had began to "lead the parade" that previously had been driving him out of the Party: many EDAs had threatened not to run candidates, several provincial divisions had revolted, there were pending lawsuits and an emergency AGM planned to remove him. An insider reported that Harris himself would soon be gone, and was simply trying to claim credit for work of people whose efforts he had undermined, opposed and fought. The allocation of resources in the party's recently approved budget (after being developed by the ERCT and with a reported 2 minutes of debate by council) was controversial "Media teams combined budget was revealed to be ~$170,000, Platform ~$30,000, Shadow Cabinet $0."

The consensed minutes thanked not only Pilling, whom the original version of the agenda had named, but also Travis (who had announced his retirement effective June 30) and whom Pilling quoted as saying "It's a good thing i wasn't around when the LP was proposed - I would have stopped it". The "thanks" was a paper-over.

The next day, ERCT Chair Debbie Hartley resigned. The ERCT had been defeated. The Living Platform had "won". It was now the core facility of the party, validating its actual use in the 2004 election to answer questionnaires, compare policies and provide one-stop shopping for all the instructional capital of the Party.

[edit] undead ERCT

Despite this strong show of support from the Shadow Cabinet, Leader, and the daily use of the LP facility for GPC Council's own communications, a unilateral decision by Dermod Travis shut the LP down on February 9th:

"Due to due diligence related to this site's Terms of Use, this site is temporarily unavailable for viewing. For more information, please contact the site's administrators. - webadmin@greenparty.ca"

Immediately calls to fire Travis were met with the response that Travis was responsible only to the ERCT, a committee that included himself and which had no Chair. Travis believed that he had won, that he and Dickerson were now free to author the party's 2005 platform, including material compatible with Harris' book.


[edit] constitutional status

Various proposals to clarify the constitutional status of the GPC Council, GPC Shadow Cabinet and the LP were being discussed as of February 2005. The plan was to accelerate the LP towards completion of a platform, integrating 2004 and 2005 materials and using deadlines as a way to require the Shadow Cabinet to use the wiki.

Also as of Feburary 2005 there were pending issues in same-sex marriage and constitutional status of cities, plus budget issues, that could easily cause a minority government to fall, and a call from Canadian Finance Minister Ralph Goodale for green tax shifts to put in the February 23, 2005 budget. Due largely to the crisis above, the GPC was paralyzed and unable to coordinate a response to this issue.

[edit] External links

[edit] NPOV

This article is completely POV. Personally, I don't care whether the Living Platform lives or dies as I'm not a Green supporter or fan but the dispute should be covered objectively. AndyL 06:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does "completely POV" mean? This kind of comment is not very useful. in trying to find out what the disputes are. If the side that has written the article is not answered, and it HAS been (the present article is MUCH toned down from the one above) edited by the opposing side which clearly also tried to include all kinds of judgements of its own, there's not much you can do. Two POV warriors who are clashing will generate something about as objective as you presently see, but nothing more.
As always the phrase "POV" is used at Wikipedia to mean "I don't like this, and I can't say why, because I don't know what I'm talking about."
List specific phrases or facts that are disputed and THEN put the neutrality tag on.

It would help if you signed your posts. The phrase POV means "point of view" as opposed to NPOV for "neutral point of view". Completely POV means this article is so completely biased it would take too long to list each individual problem. The present article is "much toned down" since I went through it and took out the more egregious points.

But, since you seem to doubt me when I say the article was "completely POV" here are the things I've removed:

It is expected that the most prominent members of the Party will uphold this platform rather than the one written privately by the Leader Jim Harris (politician). This may cost Harris' leadership. - If so, it will also be notable for being the first wiki to actually become central in a power shift in a real party
Most readers of Wikipedia, especially those who study its own internal politics, would be interested in this kind of conflict. If you wish to know the impact on Harris' leadership prospects why not read the GPC's own general interest mailing list and see for yourself?

The passage is speculative, not factual. AndyL 07:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the Green Party of Canada received only 4.3% of the popular vote in the Canadian federal election, 2004 and is not in the Canadian House of Commons due to Canada's antiquated "first past the post" voting system
There is nothing even remotely POV about this except the word "antiquated". But that is also considered to be common knowledge in Canada, where there are many electoral reform efforts underway, and NOT ONE OF THEM has an official "no" campaign. Soo "antiquated" would seem to be an objective observation.

The word antiquted is what makes the passage POV. AndyL 07:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Despite the bizarre claim that its promoters had attempted to usurp rule by the elected GPC Council, this seemed to be more true of the ERCT itself, since it had removed and shut out that Council from the most critical governance decisions, including hiring and firing and who was to be trusted to mediate the party's policy debate.
Usurpers claiming to be saviours is nothing new, and not even that interesting. The hiring and firing decisions and mediation decisions were all taken over by this "ERCT" group. The claim that some people who ran a wiki were doing something more egregious is bizarre, though you could pick a different word if you want.

Characterising a claim as "bizarre" is POV. The entire passage is argumentative and meant to support a particular side in the dispute.AndyL 07:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, one day before the shutdown, in early February, an attempt by that Council to assert the power to fire usurpers and protect "whistleblowers" - such as Head of Platform and Research Michael Pilling - was ruled "out of order" - obviously, so that he could be fired the next day. This was the culmination of a clear power grab:
Again, it's fair reporting language given the facts. The word "whistleblower" was used to describe Pilling, the Council passed a motion to protect him, and he was fired the very next day. It is objectively a power grab, since the power to hire and fire was with that Council originally.

Characterising one side's actions as "a clear power grab" is POV. The phrase "obviously, so that he could be fired the next day" is argumentative and supposition. AndyL 07:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Internal party controversies are a normal and generally unavoidable part of politics.
Surely THAT sentence is objective.

Not in the context given. It's put forward as part of an argument against Harris. AndyL 07:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A small clique close to the Leader or against participatory democracy in general, including well-known opponent of consensus decision making Bill Hulet, spoke up for the power grab, arguing "it is clearly not in the interest of the Green Party of Canada to use its scarce resources to advertise inflammatory comments about its duly elected leadership."
This is a direct quote, and, Hulet is noted for such innovative debating methods as blanking the page that describes deliberative democracy on the GPC's LP.

Terms like "power grab" are POVAndyL 07:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If *these* are the paragraphs you find objectionable then it seems you don't know much about politics, AndyL.

Please keep the insults to yourself and read wikipedia's policy on maintaining a Neutral Point of View in articles. AndyL 06:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreen_Party_of_Canada_Living_Platform_b415.html"